Spurs' quandary: deciding if home is where the Hart is

Amid the frenzy of a north London derby it probably went unnoticed. After all, the presence of Iain Duncan Smith is not that surprising at White Hart Lane, where he shares a season ticket. Only last Sunday, the Tory leader was the guest of Daniel Levy, the Tottenham chairman and a man in the middle of some very hard lobbying to improve the fortunes of the club both on and off the field.

Levy has entertained the Sports Minister, Richard Caborn, and made representations to that supposed great football fan Tony Blair. The lobbying will continue at the next home game, against Charlton on Boxing Day, when fans will be presented with the most emotive of all questions: is it time, after a tenure stretching back 104 years, to leave White Hart Lane? A questionnaire will be contained in the match programme and has been posted on the club website.

These are difficult times for Tottenham. That may seem a strange statement with the club looking more stable than for many years, but Levy's outburst – that they may have to quit their home – was a cry for help. "Either there is going to be a significant commitment or we are off," he said. Levy's further suggestion that they may ground-share with Arsenal was also designed to provoke a response. It did.

The truth is Tottenham are hemmed in both physically and financially. And that means they are in danger of never getting into the big league. Not the Premiership but the league that matters – the financial one in which only the top five clubs compete. Just 10 years ago, of course, their turnover was more than that of Manchester United.

Tottenham's ground, with its capacity of 36,000, is too small, especially as pay-per-view television isn't working. The club cannot increase capacity – to their target of 50,000 – because although land is available, the infrastructure isn't. So planning permission is impossible. The area around White Hart Lane is a traffic nightmare and the only way it will improve is if there is enough arm-twisting for London Underground to extend its Victoria Line to Northumberland Park. Hence the lobbying. But even if the station happens – and it is a big if – it will take years to come to fruition. John Bick, of the financial public relations firm Holborn, representing Tottenham, admits the directors are trying to "force the pace". "It is a complex situation and they are impatient," he said.

So what about ground-sharing? Or a new stadium? Privately Spurs like the idea of the former – particularly if Wembley Stadium were a possibility – but realise the latter is a non-starter. They have witnessed the trouble Arsenal have suffered in wanting to move to Ashburton Grove. Tottenham are experiencing their own planning problems and even the scheme to build an academy, Spurs Village, at Abridge in Essex is not a certainty.

And then there are the difficulties at Fulham, Wimbledon and West Ham. Accom- modating football in London is becoming difficult. As David Buchler, Tottenham's executive vice- chairman, conceded: "At the moment we have not got anything up our sleeves".

The situation is summed up by John Moore, assistant director at stockbrokers Bell Laurie Wright and an expert on football finances, who said: "Spurs have a lot of ambition but I do not know how they are going to get out of the predicament they are in."

There is another concern. Now is not the time to be spending big on rebuilding a ground or finding a new one. Everyone may want to eclipse Manchester United with their 67,000-seat stadium, new academy, new training ground and £303m shirt deal with Nike, but that was all secured before the bubble burst.

What Spurs have done to compete is borrow £75m at "favourable rates". But as a publicly quoted company why didn't they ask their shareholders for more cash? The truth is that the loan deal – known as a securitisation loan – is simpler. It is effectively a mortgage, and the security Tottenham have offered is the ground and some players as "tangible assets" – valued at £75m.

Mr Moore said: "Most shareholders are fans, whereas a bank may say, 'We want the money back now'. That is not the sort of finance that matches well with a football club. Leeds United and Manchester City have relied on securitisation deals. If the bank gets itchy it is a precarious situation."

A factor in Tottenham's thinking is that their shares, in keeping with all football stocks, have fallen dramatically in value and trade for around half of what they were worth last year. The club also point out that they have not drawn on any of the cash and will only do so for the right project – they are prohibited from spending it on players.

Whether that project will ever be at White Hart Lane remains to be seen.